Tuesday, 25 February 2003

First as tragedy.... In 1834 a coalition of political groups formed the Whig Party. The Whigs were united in their dislike of President Andrew Jackson, but had little else in common:

• "National Republicans" supported a broader federal role in developing the nation's economy. Jackson believed in limited powers for the federal government, and had vetoed federal funding for economic projects.
• Anti-Masons believed a secret society was trying to pack the judiciary and put its members above the law. Jackson was a Mason.
• States-rights advocates, the future Confederates, opposed Jackson's stance on nullification and despised his "imperial" use of executive power.

In 1836 the Whigs couldn't even agree on a national candidate, and the Democrats trounced their regional nominees. But in 1840 the Whigs rallied behind General William Henry Harrison, who campaigned on the slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler too," and won the election on the strength of his popularity. (Martin Van Buren, Jackson's successor and Harrison's opponent, was unpopular after the Panic of 1837.)

Harrison was a Whig of the National Republican variety, and with support from Congressional Whigs Daniel Webster and Henry Clay he intended to expand federal economic activity—but Harrison died within a month of taking office, and was succeeded by Vice-President John Tyler. Tyler was a states-rights absolutist, put on the ticket to attract Southern votes, and as President he vetoed his own party's efforts to enact a national economic policy. Weakened by infighting, the Whigs lost in 1844 to James K. Polk and the resurgent Democrats.

In 1848 the Whigs nominated General Zachary Taylor, who won a three-way race against the Democrats and the anti-slavery Free Soil Party. Taylor himself was fiercely opposed to slavery, and would have triggered the Civil War a decade earlier had he lived through his term... but he died of cholera, and successor Millard Fillmore (with Clay and Webster) enacted the Compromise of 1850, deferring the Union's day of judgment for a decade.

In 1852 the Whigs ran on a platform of preserving the Union, supporting the Compromise, and continuing their economic policies—a lukewarm position that appealed to neither side of the slavery debate: Northern Whigs defected to the Free Soil Party, Southern Whigs to the Democrats. Party leaders Clay and Webster both died in '52, and the controversy over the Kansas-Nebraska Act drove the final nail into the party's coffin. In 1856 the remaining Whigs endorsed ex-President Fillmore, who had switched to the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party, and in 1860 the Republicans (led by ex-Whig Abraham Lincoln) sent the Whig Party into the history books.

The Whigs never found a common goal among their various special-interest groups, and they won the White House more by the popularity of their candidates than by winning any mandate for their policies. They had a remarkable streak of bad luck, with untimely deaths and illnesses—but what ultimately destroyed the party was that they failed to address the major issue of the day. In 1852 an American political party could not duck the issue of slavery and hope to survive.

Now let's turn the clock forward, and examine the modern (post-Kennedy) Democratic Party. The Democratic power bases are, roughly:

• Blue-collar labor, who support a broader federal role in regulating the nation's economy.
• (Pro-choice / gun-control / civil rights) advocates, who believe that a right-wing conspiracy is trying to pack the federal judiciary and roll back (abortion rights / gun control / civil rights).
• Anti-war leftists, who oppose (Nixon / Reagan / Bush) and his "imperial" use of executive power.

In 1972 the Democrats were trounced by Nixon, but in 1976 they rallied behind Jimmy Carter and triumphed over the scandal-plagued Republicans. Carter was remembered for the Camp David peace talks and for negotiating arms treaties with the Soviets, but he was perceived as an ineffective leader and struggled with economic issues. Weakened by recession and the Iranian hostage crisis, the Democrats lost in 1980 to Ronald Reagan and the resurgent Republicans, who proceeded to win the next two elections.

In 1992 the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton, who campaigned on the slogan "it's the economy, stupid," and won a three-way race against the Republicans and the Reform Party. (George H. W. Bush, Reagan's successor and Clinton's opponent, was unpopular after the Recession of 1991.) As a political creature, Clinton was fascinating and repulsive—but as a guide to Democratic Party principles, he was an enigma. Aside from handful of initiatives, Clinton's tenure was marked by discussions of morals and character rather than issues of substance, culminating in his impeachment and acquittal for the not-so-high crime of having an affair with a White House intern.

In 2000 the Democrats lost the closest election in American history, to Republican George W. Bush; "Clinton fatigue" and the quality of Al Gore's campaign were cited among the reasons for the loss.

And then the war came.

Since September 11th, American voters have made foreign policy a top priority—a priority that the Democratic Party has, astoundingly, decided not to address. In the 2002 midterm elections the Democrats stressed there was "no daylight" between their position and President Bush's, and they campaigned on economic issues rather than debating the War on Terror. For a midterm election that historically should have favored the Democrats, the results were disappointing.

Like the Whigs of 1852, the Democrats have not taken a position on the most critical issue of the day. Like the Whigs of 1852, the party can't take a position without splitting its base. Like the Whigs of 1852, the Democrats face the possibility of sliding into irrelevance: With our armed forces preparing for all-out war in the Middle East, with America and France playing a high-stakes game of chicken in the United Nations, with NATO in danger of collapsing, with nervous citizens preparing for biowarfare attacks, with the most dire threats to our peace, freedom, and security rising like tidal waves and demanding our urgent and utmost attention... the Democrats are busy filibustering a judicial nominee.

Where the Whigs had leaders like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, and lost them both at a crucial time, the Democrats have Bill Clinton, who is still radioactive, and Al Gore, who saw his shadow last month and won't come out again until 2007. A quick review of the Democratic Foreign Policy Manual (1970-2000 Edition) reveals many chapters on free trade, humanitarian intervention, and a few yellowed pages about containment, but offers nothing to address the current crisis. All that the Democrats have offered to date has been to embrace or critique the President's actions, without developing a policy of their own.

In 2003 an American political party cannot duck the issue of terrorism and hope to survive. If the Democratic Party doesn't brush up its credentials and present a credible policy, one with more meat than simply supporting or opposing what Bush does, then the Democrats will follow the Whigs into oblivion.

Next: If I'm so smart, what should the Democrats do? Aside from nominating me for President, of course.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 7:26 am. comments.